I would like to know if there were some monks during Buddha's own time who aspired towards the Bodhisattva goal? Or were all of his disciples practicing to be Arhats?

Also, an unrelated question. Mahakashyapa was one of the most foremost disciples, and he is described as being a strict ascetic who also did not shave his head, unlike other Buddhist monks, and who practice dhutanga asceticism. And therefore, he looked more like a modern Hindu ascetic in the Himalayas. Chan/Zen tradition says that he was first passed down the Chan (Dhyana) lineage directly from Buddha when he lifted a flower and smiled at the disciples. This indeed makes sense, considering Mahakashyapa's intense asceticism and non-reliance on intellectual discourse.

Could it be that some of the early disciples, especially the senior ones, were in fact walking the Bodhisattva path instead of the Arhat path? And it is from them that Mahayana lineages were passed down?

Speculative, and unrepresented in the early texts, so likely not a concern for them.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

For be an Bodhisatta, with aim of becoming a Samma Sambuddha, the one must meet an another Samma Sambuddha, and anonce it to him. Until there is a Buddha Gotama Dhamma, there is cant be an another Buddha, only Arahants.Actualy Bodhisatta Maytreya, the fifth, and the last Buddha of this kalpa, dwell in Tusita Realm.When Buddha Gotama Dhamma will diapear, Buddha Maytreya will become Samma Sambuddha.

That you mean under "way of Boddhisatta", is called "altruistic way of life"There is no two Bodhisatta. There is no twe Buddha at the same time

Peoples must to understand some difference between Conditioned Metta and Unconditioned Metta.

That you called Bodhisatta way, is the way of Conditioned Metta.Arahant way, is Unconditioned MettaWhy?Because clear and smooth mirrow dont change, dont correct, dont modify that is reflect on it. Mirrow is endowed by absolute wisdom and absolute compasion, it let dhammas be what they are.

Arahant see that all is in perfect haromy, all have causes, there is no good or bad, somethink that must be modifyed, or correct, that there is no impermanence, no suffering, no someone who can suffer.So, by undestanding this, he dont act, he dont change anithing, he dont correct enything, he dont judge anything, he dont help anyone, he dont harm anyone, he let the river flow, like a lotus that let the rain drop slide down.

The most meritious and compassionate action is not-action.That is what there is conditioned compassion and unconditioned compassion.

Dhp 39. There is no fear for an awakened one, whose mind is not sodden (by lust) nor afflicted (by hate), and who has gone beyond both merit and demerit.

Ud 1.8Saṅgāmaji Sutta: Saṅgāmaji I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion Ven. Saṅgāmaji had arrived in Sāvatthī to see the Blessed One. His former wife heard, "Master Saṅgāmaji, they say, has arrived in Sāvatthī." Taking her small child, she went to Jeta's Grove. On that occasion Ven. Saṅgāmaji was sitting at the root of a tree for the day's abiding. His former wife went to him and, on arrival, said to him, "Look after me, contemplative — (a woman) with a little son." When this was said, Ven. Saṅgāmaji remained silent. A second time... A third time, his former wife said to him, "Look after me, contemplative — (a woman) with a little son." A third time, Ven. Saṅgāmaji remained silent.

Then his former wife, taking the baby and leaving him in front of Ven. Saṅgāmaji, went away, saying, "That's your son, contemplative. Look after him."

Then Ven. Saṅgāmaji neither looked at the child nor spoke to him. His wife, after going not far away, was looking back and saw Ven. Saṅgāmaji neither looking at the child nor speaking to him. On seeing this, the thought occurred to her, "The contemplative doesn't even care about his son." Returning from there and taking the child, she left.

The Blessed One — with his divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — saw Ven. Saṅgāmaji's former wife misbehaving in that way.

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

At her coming, he didn't delight; at her leaving, he didn't grieve. A victor in battle, freed from the tie:[1] He's what I call a brahman.

Dawn, you say, the mirror doesn't change. What is the mirror? it seems like "the ultimate self". But in Buddhism, is there an ultimate self?

Why assume a mirror that is endowed by absolute wisdom and absolute compassion? Why not just let the dhammas be what they are, why bring up a mirror?

Is it right that the Arahant doesn't act?

Imagine a toddler playing by the edge of a well. Does the Arahant move to save the toddler? if he sees everything as already being in perfect harmony than he would do nothing. Would this be a moral act?

Would the Buddha admonish the Arahant for not acting to save the child?

Mal wrote:Dawn, you say, the mirror doesn't change. What is the mirror? it seems like "the ultimate self". But in Buddhism, is there an ultimate self?

Why assume a mirror that is endowed by absolute wisdom and absolute compassion? Why not just let the dhammas be what they are, why bring up a mirror?

Mirrow is the Buddha Nature, nature of all dhammas. This nature dont belongs to somebody, but all belongs to it, and all is actualy the manifestation of it. It's not any kind of soul, or something that. It's nothing. Cant be told, thought or seen, or felt.It's like a canvas for picture, or 0 for numbers etc Is the True Nature of dhammas. That allow all dhammas to be. Like a silence that allow to the noize to be.So here, the silence is like a mirrow.

And now, see all around you, se all these dhammas, and ask your self, why it is, why it exist? There is all, because there is nothing.

There is two ways to show the true nature of dhammas, by saig :- That it is ! that too, ans also that !or- It's not that, neither that, and that no more!The both way are reason.

But we must be carefull, and dont understand it like a void, if it would be only void, so why all exist? There is no only the void, but the light of the purity of the void that comes throught it self's purity and gives a rainbow of samsara.

Buddha said, that the light of The Buddha is unsurpased.

So the absolute purity, is the reason to reflection, to light, to consciousness, to all dhammas etcThere is nothing that was created, and all will be for ever. Rainbow will still shine for ever and ever. So we have to go beyound color, beyound dhammas, beyound good or bad, beyound any condition...

Mal wrote:Is it right that the Arahant doesn't act?

Imagine a toddler playing by the edge of a well. Does the Arahant move to save the toddler? if he sees everything as already being in perfect harmony than he would do nothing. Would this be a moral act?

Would the Buddha admonish the Arahant for not acting to save the child?

Right action is the action that have a reasons, that have a causes.

All action is right action.Why?Because this action is done, and if it's done, is that there is more conditions, more reasons for this action and not for an another. If an action is done this action is in harmony with external and internal. Actualy an action is the linking element, an action is the tradution of harmony, manifestation of harmonySo if he would not help, it would be a right action, because it's done, because there is more conditions for the non-doing, because this non-action traduce the harmony.

There is one zen story.Once one king warrior comes in one town, have destroyed it, and when he comes in one hose, there is one old wise man who was here. So the king warrior ask him:- Do you know who i am ?? I'am the one who will break your head without blinking !!So old man replied:- And you, do you know who i'am? I'am the one which head will be broken by you without blinking.

I heared hat Buddha said that bhikkhu have to help someone in danger. He adds an another condition to action in this situation. But if an Arahant, not an bhikkhu, will not help because there is more reasons to not-help, so this not-action will be right action. Right action means the action that is leaded by Dhamma, by the law of all dhammas, by the law of anicca, dukkha, anatta, and also equanimity, interdependence etc.

It's may be more zen approach that theravada aproach, but anyway - sabbe dhamma anatta.